Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4aa03d$11m@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a2nvk$m7h@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <DJ6L7r.8BG@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4a8kkn$71n@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:27:57 GMT Lines: 63 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29667 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10024 comp.unix.advocacy:11894 comp.unix.misc:19927 In article <4a8kkn$71n@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu>, BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM <bl03@uwrf.edu> wrote: >John S. Dyson (dyson@inuxs.inh.att.com) wrote: >: In article <4a2nvk$m7h@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu>, >: BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM <bl03@uwrf.edu> wrote: >: > >: >I admit that Linux is NOT CVS open to the public...But it's open to anyone >: >who wants to do it...Yes, we might have have source code release every hour >: >(well..A few times.=), but even if Linus openned up his CVS to everyone and >: >let everyone read it...I doubt he recompiles his kernel more then 2 a week. >: ><shrug> >: > >: Again, it is Linus' decision, or is there a group of people making the >: decision? >: >From what it sounds like it.. It's like FreeBSD..Once you gain control >over a driver or sub-set of the system. YOU make the choices on how to >optimized and implement...and YOU deal with it when it's broken.. > And the developer, if the subsystem is large/complex enough can get direct CVS read/write access if they are trustworthy on FreeBSD. I still haven't seen that it is true on Linux. > >Does it matter if ONE or MANY people are deciding?? As long as the ONE >person is reasonable (as Linus has been) and explains WHY he refuses to >add it into the mainstream kernel...Does it really matter? > Well, on FreeBSD, you might have a better chance to find a champion out of perhaps 5-10 kernel developers who regularly commit -- as opposed to only one on Linux. On FreeBSD our development appears to be more open. >: >I'm sure if you did not have the legal issues then you would be a little >more head of Linux in a lot of areas, but my point is (and many others) that >it's a different method of management. Soon we have the *BSD* file systems >for use under Linux... FreeBSD already has EXT2FS. > >: The biggest thing right now is that FreeBSD is great at providing performance >: under high load with stability. And that the FreeBSD development is proceeding >: at an increasing pace. The most important thing that Linux has ahead of >: FreeBSD is user base -- and that (in a capitalistic society) can be the >: whole story. :-(. But of course Microsoft has an even bigger user base, so >: it has to be the best :-). >: >Where you fokes are focusing on High Load stability; we are working on >pushing Networking..... On FreeBSD the networking is already good under heavy load. (When I was talking about high load -- I meant to include networking.) Most benchmarks that I have seen show that FreeBSD is already approx 1.5-2X Linux in Networking perf. The already very good *BSD networking code has allowed us to work on other performance and stability issues unhindered. Of course, there has even been significant improvements in the FreeBSD and *BSD networking code though e.g. TTCP and other performance things. Looks like Linux is in catchup mode there also :-). John dyson@freebsd.org